Only 3 of 50 Stablecoins Pass MiCA Compliance Test in EU

Three. Out of fifty. That is the outcome of the Markets in Crypto-Assets regulation for stablecoins in Europe, a framework in effect since late 2024 that was meant to clean up the market. In practice, Circle's USDC and EURC, along with Paxos's USDG, are the only ones among the 50 largest capitalizations that tick all the boxes. The rest are non-compliant, not authorized to operate normally within the European Union.

The MiCA regulation sets strict rules: mandatory reserves, reimbursement guarantees for holders, capital requirements, anti-money laundering measures. Stablecoins must behave somewhat like traditional financial institutions. The idea is to protect users against the risks of an asset that claims to be stable but, without a framework, can collapse overnight.

European players have started to move. Société Générale-Forge already offers compliant solutions, the EURCV pegged to the euro. In July, Caceis, a subsidiary of Crédit Agricole, launched the EURXT, its own euro stablecoin. These initiatives remain marginal compared to the scale of the global market. The vast majority of dominant stablecoins, those traders and platforms use daily, still do not meet MiCA criteria. European users find themselves with very limited compliant options.

On the exchange side, GOin and Coinhouse have obtained the payment institution license issued by the ACPR, the Prudential Control and Resolution Authority. The license allows them to sell MiCA-compliant stablecoins on French territory. It's a step, probably necessary, but far from sufficient to change the game on a European scale. The payment license is just one piece of the puzzle; the issuers themselves must comply, and that's where it gets stuck.

Dollar stablecoins dominate the global market. Tether's USDT and Circle's USDC account for the bulk of volumes. Euro-denominated stablecoins represent barely 0.25% of the global market. Not 25%. Not 2.5%. 0.25%. It's a structural problem for Europe: even if MiCA creates a solid framework, the demand for euro stablecoins remains very low compared to that for dollar stablecoins. Users go where liquidity is, and liquidity is in dollars.

Stablecoins serve this purpose: enabling fast, low-cost payments without suffering the violent fluctuations of Bitcoin or Ethereum. For a trader who wants to exit a position at 3 a.m. without going through a bank, it's convenient. For a company that wants to pay an international supplier without exchange fees, it's useful. All this mainly works with dollar stablecoins, not euros. European issuers struggle to convince users to change their habits.

MiCA compliance is costly. Audits, immobilized reserves, legal teams, regular reporting; small issuers don't necessarily have the resources for all this. Even the big ones hesitate to incur these costs in a market where demand remains uncertain. That's probably why out of 50 major stablecoins, 47 are still not in compliance.

In practical terms, a user in France or Germany who wants to use a MiCA-compliant stablecoin has very few choices. USDC, EURC, USDG. That's about it in large volumes. Société Générale-Forge's EURCV and Caceis's EURXT exist, but their liquidity and adoption remain limited. It's not that users refuse compliance; it's that compliant alternatives are not yet numerous or liquid enough to replace what they already use.

Meanwhile, Tether's USDT, by far the most used stablecoin in the world, is not MiCA-compliant. No public details on an ongoing application, no clear timeline. Tether represents a massive share of global crypto volumes. Its absence from the European framework creates a real void for platforms and traders operating in Europe.

MiCA aims for harmonization of rules at the European level, even an influence on global standards. The ambition is there. With only 3 compliant stablecoins out of 50, the gap between the goal and reality remains immense, and European users feel it every day.